It is A Good Thing that We Have a Sharp Divide Between Blue and Red States

Keeping the Divide Sharp
Quasi-random thoughts on the day after the day after the day after:
Denizens of Blue State Nation--you know who you are--should not let Bush get away with his phony I'm-going-to-reach-out rhetoric. Nor should they be swayed by the time-to-heal puffery being put forward by members of the punditocracy.

I was a guest on NPR's Diane Rehm Show this morning and made the case that it is a good thing that the country is so divided. Those of you who have been reading this blog are familiar with this argument. (Those of you who are not can scroll below and traipse through the recent items.) In response to my pro-divide declaration, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard-who wrote a book claiming that Saddam Hussein was fully in bed and entangled under the sheets with Osama bin Laden (even though the 9/11 commission and the CIA found no evidence of this)--said that he was delighted to hear such honesty from a member of the Bush opposition. But when I noted that it was disingenuous of Bush to claim to be interested in earning the trust of Kerry voters after he ran a divisive campaign, Hayes shot back that Kerry had been as nasty in return (by accusing Bush of lying the country into war) and that Kerry supports had characterized Bush as a "Nazi-loving idiot." Two points, I retorted. First, neither the Kerry campaign not any responsible Bush critic accused Bush of affection for Adolph. Second, it was Bush who was running for reelection as the president of the United States. As the president of all Americans, he had a greater obligation to raise--or attempt to raise--the standards of political discourse in America. After all, didn't he promise in 2000 to improve the "tone" in Washington? Yet he mocked and derided Kerry by mischaracterizing Kerry's positions and hurling false charges at him (for instance, stating that Kerry's health care plan called for a "government takeover" of the medical establishment).

Let's be clear and plain about the campaign, the vote count, and all else. There are profound differences between Blue Staters and Red Staters, and this stuff is worth fighting over. Here's a small example. According to Newsweek, Bill Clinton "urged" Kerry to "back local bans on gay marriage" to draw support in red states. Kerry "respectfully listened, then told his aides, 'I'm not going to ever do that." Bully for Kerry. Is this the flip-flopper that Bush decried? Not at all. Yet on the radio today, Hayes continued to whip Kerry for voting for the Iraq war and then voting against it. You know the rest. But when Kerry voted to grant Bush the authority to launch military action when Bush deemed best, he clearly explained that he was doing so for tactical reasons--in order to provide Bush with the ability to threaten Saddam Hussein--and that he expected Bush would not strike Iraq until weapons inspections had been pursued as far as possible. Kerry (and others) miscalculated by giving Bush this power. But there is nothing inconsistent between his vote and his criticism of the war that Bush did order (after not pursuing inspections seriously). Even after the votes are counted, the right hangs on to--and promotes--this canard.

Back to gay marriage. The insta-analysis was that the 22 percent of the voters who (according to the flawed exit polls) cited "moral values" as their top concern in choosing a candidates made the crucial difference. That may be true. But this does not mean that one-fifth of the electorate are Christian evangelicals who care more about what Bob and Bob are doing in the privacy of their own home than they care about economic trends that affect them directly. After the last election, Karl Rove said that he believed that 4 million or so Christian evangelicals did not turn up at the polls for Bush. Rove and Ralph Reed worked damn hard this time to get them there. And the anti-gay marriage initiatives in Ohio and elsewhere were their primary tool, but not the only one. Their efforts appear to have paid off, with Bush collecting about 4 million more votes. Are these 4 million the same as Rove's missing 4 million? Perhaps. That ain't good news for the Democrats. But it's better--or less discouraging--news than the notion that there are 24 million voters out there who worry first and foremost about stifling gay rights. (A note to those conservative voters who do obsess about gay marriage: the exit polls show the electorate is only 3 or 4 percent gay and lesbian. How many of these people are looking to get hitched? By the numbers, it's a small "problem.")

By the way, check out this piece in The Washington Post on a middle class but social con family in Sheffield, Ohio, that is overjoyed that Bush triumphed. Daddy lost his $55,000-a-year job and now pulls in $35,000 by working at a car rental counter and delivering pizzas. Still, he and Mommy care more about what she calls "moral absolutes"--such as abortion and gay marriage. The Dems can write off these people. They have the right to put their religious beliefs (that is, their disgust with two men copulating) ahead of their economic concerns. It's a free country (so to speak). No amount of economic populism is going to reach them. And there's no way the Democrats are going to be able to convince such folks that they are on the same "values" wavelength. Even if Kerry had taken Clinton's opportunistic advice, he would not have won over such voters. They would have seen through the ruse in a nanosecond. The Democrats have to find other voters.

The Blue State Nation does not exist in the shadow of fundamentalist Christians. It has nearly as many citizens as Red State Nation (if you only count voters). It needs to keep the divide sharp and not allow the election results to wash away the legitimate reasons for that divide.


link